Intra-union conflict and the 1970 dock strike in Britain

ABSTRACT

The docks are one of the most academically scrutinised sectors of the British economy and, due to the industry’s historical reputation for strike-proneness, episodes of workplace conflict are generally popular sources for research. Nevertheless, one dispute remains curiously under-examined – the 1970 national dock strike. This is particularly remarkable since it constituted the first national strike in the industry for nearly half a century, lasted almost three weeks, led to the declaration of a State of Emergency and required a government-sponsored inquiry to reach a resolution. On the surface, it was provoked by disagreement between the national employers’ association and the union over basic weekly wage bargaining. Behind the scenes, however, the course, nature and outcome of the dispute is best understood in the context of the relationship between the membership and officialdom of the union, which was rooted in a history of antagonism, and the revolutionary technological changes taking place in cargo handling at this time. What follows is a detailed account of the 1970 national dock strike and the events surrounding it, considered in the context of the literature relating to hierarchical divisions in trade union organisations.

Abbreviations

LMC: Local Modernisation Committee NAPE: National Association of Port Employers NASDU: National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers Union NDLB: National Dock Labour Board NDLS: National Dock Labour Scheme NJC: National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry NPSSC: National Ports Shop Steward Committee TGWU: Transport and General Workers’ Union TUC: Trades Union Congress TUR: Temporary Unattached Register

KEYWORDS:

• Trade unions
• history
• industrial relations
• Britain
• dock industry
• industrial disputes

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Ex-Prime Minister James Callaghan’s comments during a House of Lords debate, 6 April 1989 originally cited in Sapsford and Turnbull (1990, p. 26).

2. Pearson (1970)). Report into wage dispute of NJC for the port transport industry, Cmnd. 4429, London: HMSO.

3. The weekly time rate was a basic minimum wage for dockworkers before piecework and bonus payments. The NJC was one of several joint union-employer mechanisms established to regulate employment relations and bargaining in the industry at the national, institutional level.

4. In the period 1947 to 1955, the docks lost four times more man days to strikes (per 1000 workers) than coal mining and 40 per cent more than all the major sectors (coal, ship building, automotive/engineering, construction, textiles) combined – Source: Devlin (1965)). Final report of the Committee of Inquiry under the Rt. Hon Lord Devlin into certain matters concerning the port transport industry, Cmnd 2734, London: HMSO.

5. The NDLS introduced compulsory registration for workers and employers and was regulated by the National Dock Labour Board (NDLB), which was composed of employer, union and independent members. Local boards were also established to manage registration, work allocation and discipline. The size of the registered labour force was now regulated by the local board, a provision which helped to reduce underemployment. The Scheme also guaranteed dockers ‘fall back’ pay where no work was available.

6. Underemployment and casualism were symptomatic of the nature of the dock industry. Irregular trade cycles and shipping timetables dictated by season, weather and economic conditions demanded a large surplus pool of labour to cover manning requirements at maximum capacity which then contracted sharply in slack periods. Employment opportunities were consequently at best uneven and at worst non-existent. Casual employment was universal at British docks even after initial regulation of the industry in 1947, with recruitment on a half-daily basis offering little job security. This led reciprocally to casual attitudes by both workforce and management towards their respective workplace responsibilities.

7. Port workers’ committees were tacitly recognised by employers in the 1940s and instances of unofficial organisation were apparent in the prelude to the first national dock strike in 1889. For more detail, see: Hikins (1973); Jackson (1973); McIlroy (1996).

8. If they had not already been selected for work, dockers would present themselves for hire twice daily, once in the morning and once in the afternoon – this was nicknamed the ‘turn’.

9. Pennington (1960, p. 5) gives this generous figure for NASDU membership in northern ports. Hunter (1994, p. 31) states that the Blue claimed to have 16,000 members in the north. However, The Economist (24 March 1956), estimates that the union had 10,000 members there. Phillips (1996, p. 175), contends that the NASDU had a membership of 7000 on the Mersey (including Birkenhead’s 2000 members and most of the small workforce at Garston docks), although again this figure appears charitable.

10. The Bridlington Agreement was signed by unions affiliated to the TUC in 1939. It was conceived as a measure to minimise and regulate competition between unions, including means for conciliation and ruling on inter-union disputes.

11. Professor Fred Lindop’s interview with the Liverpool stewards, 1981 (Modern Records Centre, The University of Warwick – catalogue reference: MSS.371/QD7).

12. The TGWU and the NASDU got their ‘white’ and ‘blue’ nomenclature from the colours of their respective membership books.

13. There were several supplementary reasons why the Devlin reforms were resisted by some sections of the dock workforce. For example, the introduction of more formalised systems of manning and time-management procedures imposed greater discipline on dockers and this conflicted with their traditional attachment to some of the more flexible aspects of casualism, especially amongst some of the older dockers. Also, the whole process was viewed with suspicion from the quayside – modernisation and containerisation were bringing rapid change to an industry in which working practices and employment relationships had remained relatively unchanged for centuries.

14. The National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry consisted of an equal number of employer and union members. It was founded in 1920 as part of the Shaw Inquiry recommendations (an early Government inquiry into the casual system of employment on the docks) and dealt with establishing and administrating the port industry’s national minimum wage, overtime rates and holiday pay.

15. The existing minimum weekly wage was £11.1s.8d. The Union sought an increase to £20/week (Source: Hansard Parliamentary Papers. ‘National docks dispute’. Vol. 803, cc.1001–6, 10 July 1970).

16. Employers’ Association of the Port of Liverpool (EAPL) meeting minutes, 10 July 1970, Liverpool Maritime Museum archives, Liverpool, UK – catalogue reference: D/PEA. Phase Two was due to be introduced in 1970 on a port-by-port basis. It abolished the piecework system and replaced it with a minimum weekly wage and flat rate for tonnage handled.

17. Trades Union Congress (TUC), ‘Report of meeting between the Secretary of State for Employment and representatives of the TUC – Re: Dock Dispute’, 15 July 1970 (Modern Records Centre, The University of Warwick, UK – catalogue reference: MSS.126).

18. Hansard, 10 July 1970; TUC, ‘Report of meeting’, 15 July 1970.

19. EAPL meeting minutes, 10 July 1970.

20. EAPL meeting minutes, 10 July 1970; TUC, ‘Report of meeting’, 15 July 1970.

21. TUC, ‘Report of meeting’, 15 July 1970.

22. Jones’s motion was defeated by 43 votes to 39.

23. TUC, ‘Report of meeting’, 15 July 1970. The strike motion was passed by 48 votes to 32.

24. Department of Employment press release, ‘National Dock Strike – Statement by the Secretary of State for Employment, Robert Carr’, 16 July 1970 (Modern Records Centre, The University of Warwick, UK – catalogue reference: MSS.126).

25. NAPE press release, 15 July 1970 (Modern Records Centre, The University of Warwick, UK – catalogue reference: MSS.126).

26. Telegram from Frank Deegan (Treasurer, Liverpool Port Shop Steward Committee) to Jack Jones, 16 July 1970 (Modern Records Centre, The University of Warwick, UK – Catalogue reference: MSS.126).

27. Container ‘blacking’ (refusal to handle containers from specific sources or a total ban on container handling) was undertaken at London and Liverpool in 1968 and 1969 in response to ‘stuffing and stripping’ being undertaken outside dock estates. For more detail see Lindop (1998); Taylor (2017).

28. The Temporary Unattached Register (TUR) was introduced as part of the Devlin reforms. It was intended as a short-term measure for the small amount of registered dockers who might be without a ‘permanent’ employer for a specific engagement period. However, numbers on the register increased significantly as employers used the TUR as a reserve pool of labour. By 1972 four percent of the total registered labour force was unattached and claiming fallback pay on the TUR. This was a particular problem at London docks where numbers on the temporary register were higher still, resulting in the TUR becoming the focus for both national and localised industrial strife.

29. Although the Government declared a State of Emergency it did not use many of the powers available under the Emergency Powers Act. The Army was not used to handle cargo. Medical supplies and perishable goods were still handled by dockers, with their wages being donated to charity (Source: Letter from Jack Jones to Home Secretary Reg Maudling, 22 July 1970, Modern Records Centre, The University of Warwick, UK – catalogue reference: MSS.126).

30. EAPL meeting minutes, 28 July 1970; Wilson (1972, p. 277). The £20/week or £4/day minimum fall back guarantee was not the same as the basic rate because it only applied where no work was available for an RDW. Most RDWs earned far in excess of £20/week after modernisation, bonus and piecework rates were accrued.

31. EAPL meeting minutes, 28 July 1970.

32. Hansard, 10 July 1970.

33. For more detail on the container ban at London see Lindop (1998) and Wilson (1972). For more detail on the Containerbase dispute at Liverpool, see Taylor (2017).

34. A combination of factors eventually facilitated greater integration and alignment between local representation and the centralised union in the 1980s. As previously noted, the democratisation of the union had enabled lay members to wield influence in their trade section through election to regional and national committees. Furthermore, the 1980s were austere times for union activism in Britain. A cumulative government-driven program of macroeconomic change and anti-union legislation made it more difficult, and workers less likely, to undertake unofficial action. The political context and ongoing rationalisation of the dock industry encouraged a more defensive attitude towards activism amongst stewards and a propensity towards acting within the law and within the union machinery to pursue grievance. This could be construed as an increased orientation towards bureaucratisation, although certainly one forced through necessity. For more detail on this trend in the dock industry in the 1980s see Taylor (2018).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Greig Taylor

Dr Greig Taylor is Lecturer in Employment Relations and Human Resource Management in the School of Management at UNSW Business School, Sydney.